211–220 of 298 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand the more space thing then. Is this more space due to spacetime curvature or something else. E.g. if we have earth and moon: O o Why is there more space from the moon towards earth than away?
Spacetime curvature. Like if you dropped the earth on a giant sheet, it would stretch the sheet more than what the moon would have.
Entropic gravity is like the "brazil nut effect" [0] [1]. The idea is that if you shake a glass full of different sized nuts, the large ones will rise to the top. From what I understand, this is because larger objects have more mass, moving slower when shaked, so as the larger (brazil nuts) don't move as much relative to the smaller ones (peanuts), and because of gravity, there's a cavity left under the brazil nut wh…
> From what I understand, this is because larger objects have more mass, moving slower when shaked, so as the larger (brazil nuts) don't move as much relative to the smaller ones (peanuts) That doesn’t make sense to me. If larger objects move slower, don’t they move faster relative to the (accelerating) reference frame of the container? Also, conventional wisdom has it that shaking (temporarily) creates empty spaces,…
Yes? But so what? The relevant interaction is between the peanuts and the Brazil it's.
> Also, conventional wisdom has it that shaking (temporarily) creates empty spaces, and smaller objects ‘need’ smaller such spaces to fall down, and thus are more likely to fall down into such a space.
Right, but preferentially under the larger Brazil nuts.
Entropic gravity is like the "brazil nut effect" [0] [1]. The idea is that if you shake a glass full of different sized nuts, the large ones will rise to the top. From what I understand, this is because larger objects have more mass, moving slower when shaked, so as the larger (brazil nuts) don't move as much relative to the smaller ones (peanuts), and because of gravity, there's a cavity left under the brazil nut wh…
but these nuts move by gravity do they not? and what in the universe is exactly up and down? and why would that matter? are all celestial bodies then a local up and 'away from them' down? this analogy hurts my brain. please tell me how to make the hurting stop
Entropic gravity is like the "brazil nut effect" [0] [1]. The idea is that if you shake a glass full of different sized nuts, the large ones will rise to the top. From what I understand, this is because larger objects have more mass, moving slower when shaked, so as the larger (brazil nuts) don't move as much relative to the smaller ones (peanuts), and because of gravity, there's a cavity left under the brazil nut wh…
For example, if you flip N coins, there are 2^N states available once the flip is done. Each outcome has an 1/2^N probability of outcome. There's only one state where all of the states show all heads. While there's only one state where coins numbers 1-N/2 are heads, and N/2-N are tails, so that particular outcome is 1/2^N, if all we care is the macroscopic behavior of "how many heads did we get"--we'll see that we got "roughly" N/2 heads especially as N gets larger.
Entropy is simply saying there's a tendency towards these macroscopically likely groups of states.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Because they are vibrating, a lot of that energy is being wasted in brownian motion. So the denser it is, the more your average vector is going to be toward more dense brownian motion as the particles interact and induce more brownian motion ... Seems pretty intuitive to me. So this is why warm objects weigh more?
Warm objects actually do weigh more than their counterfactual cold versions haha. The stress energy tensor is the quantity to look at here.
Abstract: "According to the weak form of the equivalence principle all objects fall at the same rate in a gravitational field. However, recent calculations in finite-temperature quantum field theory have revealed that at T>0 heavier and/or colder objects actually fall faster than their lighter and/or warmer counterparts. This unexpected result is demonstrated using elementary quantum mechanical arguments."
Downloadable here: https://www.academia.edu/download/109363694/download.pdf
I don't get it. To me, entropy is not a physical thing, but a measure of our imperfect knowledge about a system. We can only measure the bulk properties of matter, so we've made up a number to quantify how imperfect the bulk properties describe the true microscopic state of the system. But if we had the ability to zoom into the microscopic level, entropy would make no sense. So I don't see how gravity or any other fu…
So all events are irreversible and entropy is always increasing. Perfection is only theoretical.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Simple example: why ice melts in a warm room. Ice melting is simply the water molecules gaining enough kinetic energy (from collisions with the surrounding air molecules) that they break the bonds that held them in the ice crystal lattice. But at the microscopic level it's still just water molecules acting according to Newton's laws of motion (forgetting about quantum effects of course). Now, back on the topic of th…
Let me try to answer. Let's say the particles are experiencing gravity as a natural entropy phenomena. They will attract until they become so close that they are now seen as a single particle. The new system has a lower entropy and a higher gravity than before. Explanation seems very rudimentary but that is the gist of the theory. From my point of view, I might add the layer of information density. Every quantum fluc…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ooh, link?
https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9504004
> This perspective suggests that it may be no more appropriate to canonically quantize the Einstein equation than it would be to quantize the wave equation for sound in air.
This seems like an odd sentence - what about phonons?
Entropic gravity is like the "brazil nut effect" [0] [1]. The idea is that if you shake a glass full of different sized nuts, the large ones will rise to the top. From what I understand, this is because larger objects have more mass, moving slower when shaked, so as the larger (brazil nuts) don't move as much relative to the smaller ones (peanuts), and because of gravity, there's a cavity left under the brazil nut wh…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your perspective is incorrect. Physical entropy governs real physical processes. Simple example: why ice melts in a warm room. More subtle example: why cords get tangled up over time. Our measures of entropy can be seen as a way of summarizing, at a macro level, the state of a system such as that warm room containing ice, or a tangle of cables, but the measure is not the same thing as the phenomenon it describes. Bol…
> there are far more ways for a system to be disordered than ordered I'm a complete layman when it comes to physics, so forgive me if this is naive — but aren't "ordered" and "disordered" concepts tied to human perception or cognition? It always seemed to me that we call something "ordered" when we can find a pattern in it, and "disordered" when we can't. Different people or cultures might be able to recognize patter…